Comments on: The archaic FBI: why it neither tapes nor transcribes interviews [see UPDATE]

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 16:27:56 +0000

Richard Aubrey:

I don’t know for sure (and don’t have time to look it up), but my guess is that the crime of lying to the FBI does not include lying about trivial and/or immaterial matters.

That is also the rule for perjury, although most people are not aware of that. People are not prosecuted for inconsequential lies, at least I’ve never heard of that being the case.

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:00:07 +0000

They are worried that recordings might give away their tactics?

What good are tactics if you aren’t getting convictions anyway?

By: Yancey Ward

Yancey Ward — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:50:31 +0000

The reason they don’t record is that in court, agents’ memories usually trump the memories of defendants in the judgments of jurors. Why give up the power to make sh*t up in that case?

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:58:25 +0000

A fed asks you what day it is. It’s Tuesday. So you say Tuesday. He writes down Wednesday. Presto, you lied to a federal agent. They’ve got you.
You should go back to how the FBI tried to save itself a lot of work looking for the Atlanta bomber. Just frame the cop, Richard Jewell.

By: Surellin

Surellin — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:36:27 +0000

The FBI didn’t give up on revolvers until the 1980s, if I recall. Drat this new technology, like tape recorders and semi-auto pistols!

By: parker

parker — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 03:59:04 +0000

A SOS conducts official business on a private, unsecure, and easily hackabled server and the discussion is abour 302 reports? More information is required, and a matter of public record, on a 4473 form to purchase a 22LR rifle.

If that is the discussion, let the discussion time travel back to April, 1912 and let comgress discuss how to rearrange a few deck chairs on the Titanic. Its like a discussion on how much hog sh*t from 500 hogs smells. It smells, discussion over. I am growing older and the older I survive I become more dangerous.

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 03:43:41 +0000

So, if I understand, a cop on the beat has to wear a vidcam 24/7 in case some defense attorney (or prosecutor) challenges his word in a case involving nothing of any existential importance other than to the perp, but the FBI doesn’t have to record an interview affecting national security and the fate of the Western World —
just want to make sure I have that straight.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 02:06:05 +0000

Oldflyer: He said he didn't speak to ALL the interviewers, but from his tone of voice it sounds as though he may have spoken to some of them. He also said that he read the 302 report.

By: blert

blert — Fri, 08 Jul 2016 01:17:19 +0000

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147045002381/the-fbi-credibility-and-government

Dilbert’s take on the controversy. ^^^^

Interesting.

By: Oldflyer

Oldflyer — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 23:22:08 +0000

I understand that Comey testified that he did not speak to the interviewers. I don’t know if he read their notes or not. So, he may have no idea what HRC said during that 3.5 hour interview. He may have no idea if her statements were consistent. He obviously doesn’t care. If he cannot see intent in her actions, he is not looking. If he will not accept the law as written, and in this case doesn’t even require intent, he should be in another line of work.

After Sen Harkins referred to the evidence in the Clinton impeachment as a “pile of dung”, I christened him the “Dungmeister”. After today I have christened Comey “the Pretzel”. I don’t know how he could twist himself into a more convoluted shape (rhetorically).